Literature DB >> 7716840

Computer simulation of the probability of detecting low volume carcinoma of the prostate with six random systematic core biopsies.

F Daneshgari1, G D Taylor, G J Miller, E D Crawford.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Six random systematic core biopsies (SRSCB) of the prostate (biopsies from apex, middle, and base of each lobe) have been commonly used in detection of prostate carcinoma. The objective of this study was to verify the validity of the SRSCB technique in detecting cancer in prostates with low-volume tumor (less than 6 cc).
METHODS: We developed a computer model of the prostate to simulate the SRSCB technique. The data for development of this model were taken from 159 radical prostatectomy specimens in which 112 patients had tumor volumes measured and in which 91 prostates had tumors with volumes less than 6 cc (by whole-mount sectioning).
RESULTS: The simulation shows that only 20.3% of the simulated prostates, with total aggregate tumor volume between 0.034 and 5.1 cc, had a tumor distribution for which the SRSCB technique has a 95% probability of detecting the tumor. In fact, 26.8% had a tumor distribution that was completely disjointed from the six recommended biopsy regions. To compare these results with other possible occurrence, various biases for the angle of biopsy and the distribution of cancer foci were incorporated into the model. Study results should be viewed with the understanding that any simulated model has its limitations. In our simulated model, the shape of the simulated tumor foci (spherical) does not represent all the possible shapes of prostate cancer. However, these results indicate that detection of cancer with biopsies taken from the apex, middle, and base of each lobe of a prostate with tumor volumes of less than 6 cc may not be as effective as it is in prostates with larger tumor volumes or patients with an abnormal digital rectal examination. The study of bias models suggests that the distributional pattern of cancerous foci can have a significant impact on the effectiveness of a given biopsy strategy.
CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that future attempts to improve systematic biopsy strategies for detection of low-volume cancer should include biomechanical characteristics of prostate cancer, including gland volume and tumor distribution. Driven by the conclusions from this idealized model, we have developed a three-dimensional model of the prostate gland from its whole-mount histologic maps. It is anticipated that this continuing investigation will lead to realistic guidelines for improving biopsy techniques.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7716840     DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80051-X

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  13 in total

Review 1.  Methods for volume assessment of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Stefan Corvin
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-02-06       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer.

Authors:  Shahrokh F Shariat; Claus G Roehrborn
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2008

3.  Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy for prediction of final prostate pathology.

Authors:  Jesse D Le; Samuel Stephenson; Michelle Brugger; David Y Lu; Patricia Lieu; Geoffrey A Sonn; Shyam Natarajan; Frederick J Dorey; Jiaoti Huang; Daniel J A Margolis; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Distribution of prostate carcinoma foci within the peripheral zone: analysis of 8,062 prostate biopsy cores.

Authors:  C Brossner; A Winterholer; M Roehlich; E Dlouhy-Schütz; V Serra; M Sonnleithner; K H Grubmüller; K Pummer; E Schuster
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2003-06-03       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Impact of a novel ultrasound microvascular imaging and elastography on prostate cancer classification.

Authors:  Ting-Ting Shen; Jun-Li Xue
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2019-12

6.  Beyond diagnosis: evolving prostate biopsy in the era of focal therapy.

Authors:  J L Dominguez-Escrig; S R C McCracken; D Greene
Journal:  Prostate Cancer       Date:  2010-12-09

7.  Minimally invasive prostate cancer detection test using FISH probes.

Authors:  Rima Tinawi-Aljundi; Shannon T Knuth; Michael Gildea; Joshua Khal; Jason Hafron; Kenneth Kernen; Robert Di Loreto; Joan Aurich-Costa
Journal:  Res Rep Urol       Date:  2016-07-27

8.  Heterogeneity of miRNA expression in localized prostate cancer with clinicopathological correlations.

Authors:  Ahmed Hussein Zedan; Søren Garm Blavnsfeldt; Torben Frøstrup Hansen; Boye Schnack Nielsen; Niels Marcussen; Mindaugas Pleckaitis; Palle Jörn Sloth Osther; Flemming Brandt Sørensen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Ultrasound-guided genitourinary interventions: principles and techniques.

Authors:  Byung Kwan Park
Journal:  Ultrasonography       Date:  2017-05-29

10.  Cost implications of PSA screening differ by age.

Authors:  Karthik Rao; Stella Liang; Michael Cardamone; Corinne E Joshu; Kyle Marmen; Nrupen Bhavsar; William G Nelson; H Ballentine Carter; Michael C Albert; Elizabeth A Platz; Craig E Pollack
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2018-05-09       Impact factor: 2.264

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.